Departmental Staff

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of staff employed in his Department were registered disabled in each year since 2001.

Anne McGuire: Please find the requested information in the following table:
	The information is representative of the disabled status as declared by individual members of staff. Not all staff who are registered disabled declare themselves as such for departmental records, and the true figure may be higher than the figures shown.
	Until 2005 the proportion of disabled staff is shown as a proportion of all staff. The numbers of staff in 2006 are however, based on the proportion of all staff who have declared their disability status(1).
	The Department for Work and Pensions was created in July 2001, and figures prior to 2002 were unobtainable.
	
		
			   Staff  Disabled staff  Percentage of disabled staff 
			 2006 119,764 6,422 5.4 
			 2005 128,534 6,703 5.2 
			 2004 137,772 7,066 5.1 
			 2003 138,774 6,999 5.0 
			 2002 133,451 7,273 5.4 
			 (1) The change was made in response to new guidance from the Cabinet Office requiring us to only include staff who have made a declaration about their disability status. The figures from 2006 onwards will therefore exclude all staff who have chosen not to declare whether they are disabled.

Ministerial Visits

Peter Soulsby: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Ministers in his Department have visited Leicester in the last year; and where they visited in Leicester.

Anne McGuire: On the 6 March 2006 the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Plaskitt) gave a speech to the National Association of Pension Funds at the offices of KPMG, 1 Waterloo Way, Leicester. The Minister for Pensions Reform (James Purnell) visited the Leicester Pension Centre on the 4 September 2006 as part of the Regional road show.
	All ministerial visits are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers.

Entertainment Budget

Oliver Heald: To ask the Prime Minister what the total cost was of official entertainment by the Prime Minister at 10 Downing street and Chequers in 2005-06.

Tony Blair: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on 11 October 2006,  Official Report, column 788W.

M42

David Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the introduction of hard shoulder running on the M42, with particular reference to road safety.

Stephen Ladyman: M42 hard shoulder running was introduced on 12 September 2006 as part of the Active Traffic Management project. Operations are being closely monitored to ensure that the systems are working efficiently and that any potential issues that might compromise road safety are quickly resolved.
	Early evaluation of the impact of hard shoulder running on traffic conditions is showing that average journey times during peak periods have been reduced. The day-to-day variability of journey times has reduced on weekdays, meaning users can plan their journeys better. There is reduced congestion on the section and average traffic speeds have been smoothed so that more drivers are travelling at around 50 mph. This has helped reduce the severity of traffic flow breakdown and improved road safety. Speed differentials between lanes has reduced, suggesting that drivers are less likely to change lanes unnecessarily, thereby improving road safety.
	Early indications are therefore, that the scheme is working well, but it is too early to draw final conclusions of the impact of hard shoulder running on the safety of the section. This is because motorways are generally very safe and incidents occur infrequently. Early information will be provided following collection of six months of personal injury accident data. This is expected by autumn 2007.

M42

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the experimental use of the hard shoulder on the M42 motorway as an additional lane for moving traffic.

Stephen Ladyman: M42 hard shoulder running was introduced on 12 September 2006 as part of the Active Traffic Management (ATM) project.
	The Highways Agency is monitoring the impact of hard shoulder running and early indications have determined that average journey times during peak periods have been reduced. The day-to-day variability of journey times has also been reduced on weekdays meaning that users can plan their journeys better. Congestion has been reduced on the section and average traffic speeds have been smoothed so that more drivers are travelling at around 50 mph. This has helped reduce flow breakdown and has therefore improved road safety. Speed differential between lanes has been reduced, suggesting that drivers will be less likely to change lanes unnecessarily, therefore improving road safety.
	These results are indicative of the potential impact of hard shoulder running, but robust conclusions cannot be drawn until at least six months of reliable data has been collected. The assessment of traffic conditions will be produced by autumn 2007.

Drug Intervention Programme

Christopher Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the accuracy is in percentage terms of devices used to screen individuals under his Department's Drug Intervention Programme.

Vernon Coaker: holding answer 18 December 2006
	The Drug Interventions Programme uses an oral fluid drug testing system capable of screening for opiates and crack/cocaine. The current equipment supplier is Cozart Bioscience Ltd.
	The Home Office monitors the performance of the equipment provided by Cozart Bioscience Ltd and this arrangement is part of the contractual requirement, two in every 100 samples are required to be sent to the independent confirmatory testing service for quality assurance. Management data over a six month period consistently demonstrates that more than 98 per cent. of samples analysed by the independent confirmatory testing service are confirmed as accurate.
	In addition to internal monitoring, scientific studies confirm the effectiveness of the oral fluid drug testing method (refs) and independent peer reviewed scientific papers have been published confirming the accuracy of the Cozart Rapiscan oral fluid drug testing system (refs).

Prisons

Edward Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners and what proportion of the prison population  (a) were sentenced for drugs offences and  (b) were imprisoned for committing an offence which was in some way drug-related in each year since 1997 for which figures are available.

Gerry Sutcliffe: In response to  (a), information on the numbers and proportion of offenders held within prison establishments England and Wales in each year since 1997 can be found in the following table which is taken from table 8.2 of the Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2005 which can be accessed at the following website:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1806.pdf
	In response to  (b), comprehensive information is not available in the form requested. However, the Criminality Survey in 2000 produced findings based on a representative sample of recently arrived male prisoners (excluding sex offenders) who had been sentenced during February and March 2000 which showed that nearly three quarters of prisoners in the sample had taken an illegal drug in the 12 months pre-prison; of these, over half (55 per cent.) reported that they had committed offences connected to their drug taking.
	Results of research into this area can be found in the publication "Prisoners' drug use before prison and links with crime", by Liriano, S. and Ramsay, M. (2003), a Home Office Research Study.
	The figures provided in answer to  (a) have been drawn from administrative IT systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system, and although shown to the last individual, the figures may not be accurate to that level.
	
		
			  Population in prison establishments( 1)  in England and Wales since 1997 for drugs offences 
			  As at 30 June each year  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Total prisoners under immediate custodial sentence 48,674 52,159 51,293 53,093 54,169 57,272 59,393 60,924 62,179 
			 Drug offences 7,174 7,893 8,169 8,473 9,148 10,067 10,330 10,486 10,661 
			 Drug offences as percentage of total 15 15 16 16 17 18 17 17 17 
			 (1) Excluding police cells.  Note:  Data Sources and Quality These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems. Care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, but the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system, and so although shown to the last individual, the figures may not be accurate to that level.  Source: Table 8.2 of Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2005.

Prisons

Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff searches were undertaken at HM Prison Pentonville in each of the last 12 months; how many unauthorised articles were found on staff in each case; what action was taken against staff found in possession of unauthorised articles in each case; and if he will make a statement.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The information requested is set out in the following table.
	
		
			  Number of searches undertaken at Pentonville prison 
			  Month 2006  Number of searches  Staff searched 
			 January 2 419 
			 February 3 417 
			 March 2 317 
			 April 3 455 
			 May 2 324 
			 June 1 193 
			 July 2 155 
			 August 1 79 
			 September 1 195 
			 October 1 174 
			 November 1 287 
			 December 1 113 
			 Note: Authorised articles are those identified Governor's Order on Authorised Articles. Staff found in possession of unauthorised articles would, for minor cases, be interviewed by a member of the security department and/or written to. No unauthorised articles discovered required police involvement.

Pre-Budget Report

Paul Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Minister for Wales on the pre-Budget report insofar as it affects the block grant for Wales.

Peter Hain: I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of topics, including the pre-Budget report.
	On 13 of December 2006 the Assembly Government's budget plans were approved. These set out increased spending for 2007-08 of £836 million more than 2006-07. This included £9.3 million announced in the pre-Budget report. The extra resources will support the delivery of public services across Wales.
	I welcome these plans which include the following allocations:
	£9.6 million special grant to schools
	£2 million to help schools meet the increased cost of energy
	£2 million to provide core funding to hospices
	£6 million to help higher education institutions meet the overhead costs of charitable research and equal pay agreements
	£1.5 million to provide extra women's refuges, children's services and sexual abuse counselling
	£1 million to support more play facilities for disabled children
	£0.5 million to increase provide extra support for foster carers
	£1.4 million to meet the cost of pensions for fire fighters
	£1.7 million extra into the revenue support grant for local authorities to support children with special educational needs and autism

HM Revenue and Customs

David Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days were lost through staff sickness at the offices of HM Revenue and Customs and the Inland Revenue in each of the last three years.

Dawn Primarolo: Details relating to staff sickness absence in these Departments for 2003 to 2005 can be found at:
	www.civilservice.gov.uk/management/occupational_health/publications/index.asp
	Data for 2006 is not yet available.

Private Medical Insurance

Andrew Pelling: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised from  (a) pensioners and  (b) pensioners over the age of 75 arising from taxation of private medical insurance provided by their previous employers since April 2006.

Edward Balls: As part of a radical simplification of the taxation of registered pension schemes Finance Act 2004 made changes to the taxation of benefits, such as private medical insurance, provided after retirement outside of a registered pension scheme. A regulatory impact assessment ("Regulatory Impact Assessment for Simplifying the taxation of pensions—Update") was published on 22 March 2006 setting out the Government's assessment of the impact of pensions simplification. This is available at:
	www.hmrc.gov.uk/ria/ria-pensions-simplification.pdf.
	The Government estimate that pensions simplification will have an overall cost to the Exchequer building up to £250 million per year.

Tax Exemptions

Christopher Huhne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of how many tax exemptions his Department has made no estimate of the cost to the Exchequer.

Dawn Primarolo: A list of the direct tax exemptions for which insufficient data exists upon which to base any reliable estimate is published on the HMRC website.
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax expenditures/00ap_b2.htm
	Exemptions from VAT can be found in Schedule 9 of the VAT Act 1994.
	Estimates have not been made of six of the fifteen exemptions.

Tax Self-assessment

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  if his Department will undertake research to assess the extent to which individuals understand tax self-assessment forms;
	(2)  what steps his Department has undertaken to simplify the tax self-assessment form;
	(3)  what estimate his Department has made of the cost in time spent by  (a) individuals and  (b) his Department to process and complete tax self-assessment forms;
	(4)  what estimate his Department has made of the average length of time it takes to complete a tax self-assessment form.

Dawn Primarolo: Following a review of self assessment forms within HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), work has been undertaken to make the self assessment return easier for customers to complete. This includes:
	The introduction of a four-page short tax return, with shorter simpler guidance, for 1.5 million people within self assessment with relatively straight forward tax affairs;
	From April 2008 a redesigned main tax return will be introduced. This new version of the tax return will be shorter for most people, and will be simpler and easier to complete because it asks for less information, has clearer explanations and makes greater use of plain English;
	Improvements to the online self assessment return to make navigation easier, improve the layout, and enhance the customer experience of completing the online return.
	Independent research shows that the customer reaction to the new short tax return and guide is overwhelmingly (90 per cent.+) positive in terms of how easy it is to understand, clarity and ease of use.
	Preliminary research from the current pilot for the redesigned main tax return shows that the majority of the unrepresented taxpayers taking part find the return easier to understand than the current return.
	HMRC has a public service agreement (PSA) target to provide simple processes for business and individuals to meet their responsibilities and claim their entitlements easily and at minimum cost. Results from the survey in 2005-06 indicate that the overall satisfaction of small businesses that complete their own tax returns (SA, PAYE and VAT) has already been improved to the levels required by that PSA target.
	The latest data available (2003) on the time taken to complete a tax return is as follows:
	
		
			   Hours (unrepresented)  Hours (represented) 
			 Employees 2.25 2.02 
			 Self employed 3.02 2.27 
		
	
	The total time spent by HMRC in processing tax returns in 2005-06 was 2,712 man years. This includes all aspects of the work from receipt to final capture.

Departmental Contracts

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total liability to his Department would be in circumstances of immediate termination of all  (a) public/private partnerships and  (b) private finance initiative contracts.

Barry Gardiner: The core-Department is currently undertaking one private finance initiative (PFI) project to provide office facilities at Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge. There are, however, a number other PFI and PPP projects being undertaken by DEFRA's sponsored bodies i.e. non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and public corporations. Information about the total direct liability to the Department or its sponsored bodies in circumstances of immediate termination of each private finance initiative (PFI) and public/private partnerships (PPP) contract is set out in the following table. It must be stressed, however, that information on termination liabilities can be highly speculative as such liabilities depend on the exact circumstances of a termination, and that the costs involved to the Department will depend on these individual circumstances. The termination liabilities to the Department, for example, will be different if the Department itself voluntary terminates a contract compared to termination by another party. The liabilities to the Department arising from third party termination are particularly hard to determine in advance.
	
		
			  Organisation  Description  Category  Liability 
			 Environment Agency Broadland Flood Alleviation Project PFI 12 months notice of termination required. If the Environment Agency terminates the contract it is directly liable to pay an estimated £31 million to Broadland Environmental Services Ltd. 
			 Environment Agency Pevensey Bay Sea Defences PFI 12 months notice of termination required. If the Environment Agency terminates the contract it is directly liable to pay an estimated 2. 5m to Pentium Coastal Defence Ltd 
			 DEFRA Office facilities at Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge PFI DEFRA has no express right of termination. Liability relating to termination would, therefore be subject to negotiation. 
			 Natural England (successor to Countryside Agency) SPIRIT IT Systems PFI The SPIRIT PFI contract between Natural England and IBM will shortly come to an end. There are no termination charges or other liabilities associated with this contract 
			 British Waterways Watership Pub Partnership PPP There is no specific penalty clause in the agreement for termination. These PPPs have shareholder agreements. If any party decides to exit from the agreement their shares have to be sold to their partners or a third party. Sale of these shares depends on the market, stage of project development etc. 
			 British Waterways Wood Wharf (London) redevelopment PPP As above 
			 British Waterways Isis- development of river and canal side PPP As above 
			 Although they are not DEFRA projects, the Department also provides support in the form of PFI credits to allow Local Authorities to enter into PFI contracts to provide waste recycling and management facilities. Since these PFI contracts are essentially between the Local Authority or Partnership and the Service Provider (i.e. PFI contractor), there will be no direct liability to DEFRA in a situation where a DEFRA sponsored PFI contract is terminated.

Departmental Equipment

Mark Francois: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of his Department's  (a) computers and  (b) laptops were stolen in each of the last nine years; and what the total value was of stolen computers and laptops in this period.

Barry Gardiner: The following figures show the number of reported thefts of computers/laptops since the formation of DEFRA since 2001:
	
		
			   Number of items stolen  Estimated Value (£) 
			 2001-02 13 15,427 
			 2002-03 23 23,112 
			 2003-04 2 1,151 
			 2004-05(1) 3 3,422 
			 2005-06(1) 18 14,292 
			 (1) Following the outsourcing of IT services to IBM in October 2004, computers/laptops are no longer classed as departmental assets as they form part of the overall contract for the provision of IT services with equipment therefore belonging to the contractor.

Eunomia

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which projects run by the consultancy Eunomia  (a) his Department and  (b) the Environment Agency has funded since 1997; and what the (i) cost and (ii) objective was of each project.

Barry Gardiner: The Department came into being in June 2001. The core-Department does not hold information centrally of any work commissioned by Defra's executive agencies or non-departmental public bodies with Eunomia. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information held centrally in the core-Department on expenditure with Eunomia is as follows:
	
		
			  Financial year  Expenditure (£) 
			 2002-03 23,860.42 
			 2003-04 107,094.23 
			 2004-05 428,972.25 
			 2005-06 711,929,20 
			 2006-07(1) 9,380.49 
			 (1) First six months. 
		
	
	From information held centrally, this expenditure relates to work commissioned from Eunomia as part of the direct consultancy support provided to local authorities under Defra's Waste Implementation Programme (WIP). The consultancy concerned environment regulation policy, and various aspects of waste management strategy including but not limited to waste disposal; waste and recycling; municipal waste; waste procurement; waste minimisation; regulatory impact assessments; planning and pollution central regimes; waste technologies; and waste practice guidance.

Flood Defences

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of new homes which have been built in high risk flood areas in the last 12 months; and what steps his Department is taking to protect such homes from flooding.

Ian Pearson: Figures on the number of homes built in high risk flood areas in the last 12 months are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	The Government aim to discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. The Department for Communities and Local Government leads on development planning policy and, following public consultation, has just published new planning policy on development and flood risk. Planning Policy Statement 25 aims to direct development away from areas at highest risk and ensure that, where new development is necessary in areas at risk of flooding, it is appropriate and safe, does not increase flood risk elsewhere and where possible reduces flood risk overall.
	Defra funds the Environment Agency to advise planning authorities on development proposals to ensure flood risk is properly taken into account but does not fund provision of measures to reduce flood risk specifically to facilitate new development. Measures needed to reduce risk for new development must be funded as part of the development, primarily through either a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or by way of developers incorporating effective design measures to mitigate the risks of a flood event.
	New development will often benefit from infrastructure already in place to reduce flood risk such as defences and flood warning systems?many areas at risk of flooding are already protected to a high standard. Building resilience to flooding into new development is being looked at as part of the developing cross-Government 'Making space for water strategy' for flood and coastal erosion risk management.

National Flood and Coastal Defence Database

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  when the Environment Agency's National Flood and Coastal Defence database will be finished; what information the database will contain; and how regularly the database will be updated once it becomes operational;
	(2)  whether external parties will be able to access the Environment Agency's National Flood and Coastal Defence database (NFCDD); and whether access to the NFCDD will be granted to external parties without charge.

Ian Pearson: The National Flood and Coastal Defence database (NFCDD) has been developed in a number of phases and was first available in 2002. Following the completion of phase 3, it is live within the Environment Agency (EA) and is available to all operating authorities with the required software and local configuration. All operating authorities will be able to use the database as they set themselves up to do so and complete their training programmes.
	The data that is held in NFCDD can be categorised into two main types. Firstly, mapping data showing the areas at risk of flooding and secondly, data about the defences themselves (their type, location and condition etcetera) and the areas that benefit from those defences. The data in NFCDD will be continually updated as defences are constructed, inspected and as better information about flood risk becomes available.
	At present, no further phases are planned but requests for changes and improvements are kept under review and will be progressed to meet the needs of the flood and coastal erosion risk management service.
	The NFCDD will contain data provided by, and make information directly available to, the flood and coastal defence operating authorities (the EA, local authorities and internal drainage boards (IDBs)) and the Government. Linking these organisations with one common data source gives rise to potential benefits in terms of consistent policy development and improved procurement opportunities. The data in the NFCDD can be downloaded and made available to other interested organisations.
	The NFCDD can be accessed at no charge by the Government, local authorities and IDBs who have the appropriate software. Data (other than that entered by the local authority or IDB themselves) that is downloaded for other than statutory purposes will generally incur a charge. In all instances the use of the data is subject to the issue an appropriate licence.
	Further information on the NFCDD can be found on the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/hltarget/nfcdd.htm

Paratuberculosis

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department is taking to fight paratuberculosis (Johere's Disease) in livestock; and what research his Department has  (a) undertaken and  (b) commissioned into the disease.

Ben Bradshaw: Johne's Disease is caused by Mycobacterium Avium subspecies paratuberculosis, often known as MAP. DEFRA is responsible for undertaking measures to reduce the prevalence of MAP in dairy herds, while the Food Standards Agency (FSA) lead on the aspects which relate to consumer health protection. The Government's strategy to control MAP in cows' milk is available on the FSA website at:
	http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/map_strategy.pdf
	In 2001, DEFRA funded a comprehensive review by the Scottish Agricultural college which assessed the surveillance and control of Johne's Disease in farm animals. The review recommended appropriate systems of surveillance and control for Great Britain. This is available on the DEFRA website at:
	http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/zoonoses/zoonoses_reports/sac2.PDF
	In 2004, DEFRA published guidance for dairy farmers on the control of Johne's Disease in dairy herds. This was done in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture Rural Development (DARDNI), the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) and is available on the DEFRA website at:
	http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/pdf/johnesguidance.pdf
	DEFRA is also working in partnership with the beef industry to reduce the spread of Johne's Disease in the cattle sector. This will help to raise production efficiency and allow for high value cattle to be sold on the export market.
	In 2005, a statistically-based surveillance survey was commissioned to look at the prevalence of Johne's Disease in the UK dairy herd. The survey aimed to:
	i. determine herd-level prevalence of the disease;
	ii. determine the effect of management practices and herd location on disease prevalence;
	iii. establish the genetic diversity of MAP in the UK to help understand its spread and provide a baseline for comparison with human isolates;
	iv. assess methodologies for future monitoring of the disease.
	The study began in the autumn of 2006 and will involve 150 randomly selected commercial dairy herds. The final report is expected by the summer of 2008(1).
	(1) The study is a collaboration between the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), the Scottish Agricultural college (SAC), Moredun Research Institute, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in Northern Ireland. The study is funded by DEFRA, SEERAD and DARDNI.

Chile

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made during his recent visit to Chile.

Geoff Hoon: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Triesman of Tottenham, visited Chile from 18 to 19 December 2006. He undertook a bilateral programme in Santiago and had wide-ranging discussions covering bilateral, regional and global issues with senior representatives from the Chilean Government, opposition parties and industry.
	The UK regards Chile as a leading regional player and an important international partner. Chile has become a model of political stability, good government and sound economic management in Latin America and makes a positive contribution to the global agenda. In recognition of this, my noble Friend Lord Triesman inaugurated a process of regular UK-Chile high level political talks with Foreign Minister Foxley. At the International Relations Institute in Santiago my noble Friend Lord Triesman delivered a keynote speech on Latin America which can be found in the Latin America section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website at:
	http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid-1007029394509&a=KArticle&aid=1166534138630.
	A FCO strategy paper on UK policy in Latin America will be published in early 2007.

Local Authorities: Inflation Costs

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  what assessment her Department has made of the underlying rate of inflation of local authorities' cost bases, broken down by cost base; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what assumptions her Department used regarding cost base inflation of local authorities in setting local authority grants for 2007-08; and if she will make a statement;
	(3)  what assessment her Department has made of the relative levels of cost inflation experienced by local authorities in different parts of the country.

Phil Woolas: In setting the overall level of Government grant support for local authority revenue spending in 2007-08, we looked carefully with local government at the factors which increased costs in that year and the extent to which those pressures could be mitigated. The overall increase in grant of £3.1 billion or 4.9 per cent. provides sufficient resources to enable authorities to deliver effective services without the need to impose excessive council tax increases. The distribution of formula and specific grants between authorities reflect the circumstances relevant to authorities. Consultation on our proposals for the funding of local authority revenue spending finished on 5 January. We are currently considering carefully all representations.

Cabinet Office Precedent Book

Oliver Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if she will place in the Library a copy of the Cabinet Office Precedent Book.

Hilary Armstrong: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office (David Miliband), to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on 3 February 2005,  Official Report, column 1011W.

Colchester General Hospital

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to fund the planned expansion of Colchester general hospital; and if she will make a statement.

Andy Burnham: This is a local matter, which falls to national health service providers locally. However, I am advised that despite the Private Finance Initiative process stopping in June 2006, Essex Rivers remains committed to centralise core services at Colchester general hospital. The trust's intention is to achieve the same strategic ends over a longer period using other avenues for finance and taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. This is the central theme of the trust's investment strategy, launched in September 2006, for which consultation ended on 22 December 2006.
	A strategic capital solution of around £40 million to £50 million is being developed. Early approval by the North East Essex primary care trust and NHS East of England boards will be sought this financial year, which will deliver a new five-year programme comprising 14 projects will achieve the outcomes required, assuming that the funding regime and activity are broadly in line with the current assumptions.

Influenza Vaccine

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of eligible patients have received the influenza vaccine in each primary care trust.

Caroline Flint: Uptake of seasonal flu vaccine in eligible risk groups by primary care trust as at the end November 2006 is attached in the following table.
	
		
			  Uptake of seasonal flu vaccine in eligible risk groups as at end November 2006 
			  Percentage uptake 
			  PCT Name  65 years and over  All patients at-risk aged 6 months to under 65 at risk 
			 Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT 60.2 36.6 
			 Barking and Dagenham PCT 54.9 30.6 
			 Barnet PCT 64.9 33.4 
			 Barnsley PCT 63.3 38.8 
			 Bassetlaw PCT 53.7 22.7 
			 Bath and North East Somerset PCT 69.1 28.9 
			 Bedfordshire PCT 65.1 30.9 
			 Berkshire East PCT 59.9 26.1 
			 Berkshire West PCT 66.7 35.4 
			 Bexley Care Trust 56.8 27.2 
			 Birmingham East and North PCT 62.7 27.7 
			 Blackburn with Darwen PCT 60.4 40.1 
			 Blackpool PCT 63.3 34.5 
			 Bolton PCT 64.3 39.3 
			 Bournemouth and Poole PCT 67.0 38.3 
			 Bradford and Airedale PCT 68.8 36.4 
			 Brent Teaching PCT 62.7 36.2 
			 Brighton and Hove City PCT 64.6 35.2 
			 Bristol PCT 61.8 26.8 
			 Bromley PCT 57.5 27.1 
			 Buckinghamshire PCT 61.0 30.8 
			 Bury PCT 56.6 35.9 
			 Calderdale PCT 57.7 31.3 
			 Cambridgeshire PCT 65.2 33.7 
			 Camden PCT 60.7 28.0 
			 Central and Eastern Cheshire PCT 65.7 33.1 
			 Central Lancashire PCT 61.4 28.4 
			 City and Hackney Teaching PCT 63.0 36.5 
			 Cornwall and Isles Of Scilly PCT 61.4 21.3 
			 County Durham PCT 68.9 34.1 
			 Coventry Teaching PCT 55.8 29.7 
			 Croydon PCT 59.9 28.3 
			 Cumbria PCT 65.5 36.5 
			 Darlington PCT 58.3 35.0 
			 Derby City PCT 62.7 32.9 
			 Derbyshire County PCT 67.6 34.0 
			 Devon PCT 58.7 22.2 
			 Doncaster PCT 63.2 27.4 
			 Dorset PCT 62.0 35.3 
			 Dudley PCT 59.2 32.7 
			 Ealing PCT 56.9 27.4 
			 East and North Hertfordshire PCT 66.1 32.0 
			 East Lancashire PCT 66.4 39.0 
			 East Riding Of Yorkshire PCT 69.0 40.2 
			 East Sussex Downs and Weald PCT 62.8 30.2 
			 Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT 61.4 22.5 
			 Enfield PCT 65.0 30.9 
			 Gateshead PCT 69.3 42.8 
			 Gloucestershire PCT 71.9 42.0 
			 Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT 63.7 22.9 
			 Greenwich Teaching PCT 55.9 25.9 
			 Halton and St. Helens PCT 58.9 29.9 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham PCT 56.2 30.4 
			 Hampshire PCT 64.7 34.4 
			 Haringey Teaching PCT 56.2 30.9 
			 Harrow PCT 64.7 34.0 
			 Hartlepool PCT 69.8 39.6 
			 Hastings and Rother PCT 59.4 34.4 
			 Havering PCT 64.1 31.3 
			 Heart of Birmingham Teaching PCT 67.0 35.4 
			 Herefordshire PCT 63.2 40.3 
			 Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale 30.5 61.8 
			 Hillingdon PCT 62.8 34.0 
			 Hounslow PCT 58.2 32.6 
			 Hull PCT 64.5 37.6 
			 Isle of Wight Healthcare PCT 63.5 34.0 
			 Islington PCT 60.5 33.5 
			 Kensington and Chelsea PCT 61.3 33.0 
			 Kingston PCT 58.7 30.2 
			 Kirklees PCT 64.1 34.8 
			 Knowsley PCT 63.1 30.9 
			 Lambeth PCT 53.5 31.6 
			 Leeds PCT 69.6 34.0 
			 Leicester City PCT 55.6 30.3 
			 Leicestershire County and Rutland PCT 59.6 30.0 
			 Lewisham PCT 56.4 26.2 
			 Lincolnshire PCT 63.5 35.5 
			 Liverpool PCT 59.9 20.8 
			 Luton PCT 61.6 23.5 
			 Manchester PCT 66.1 31.4 
			 Medway PCT 67.6 36.9 
			 Mid Essex PCT 62.5 32.7 
			 Middlesbrough PCT 61.1 29.6 
			 Milton Keynes PCT 63.0 35.0 
			 Newcastle PCT 65.4 35.0 
			 Newham PCT 59.3 33.0 
			 Norfolk PCT 62.0 33.0 
			 North East Essex PCT 60.0 21.9 
			 North East Lincolnshire PCT 62.3 31.4 
			 North Lancashire PCT 59.6 37.7 
			 North Lincolnshire PCT 65.8 36.3 
			 North Somerset PCT 61.7 27.1 
			 North Staffordshire PCT 62.8 32.1 
			 North Tees PCT 54.2 28.2 
			 North Tyneside PCT 67.6 24.3 
			 North Yorkshire and York PCT 68.2 39.6 
			 Northamptonshire PCT 56.8 29.2 
			 Northumberland Care Trust 60.6 32.9 
			 Nottingham City PCT 58.0 29.8 
			 Nottinghamshire County PCT 60.7 32.3 
			 Oldham PCT 65.5 33.6 
			 Oxfordshire PCT 66.6 34.9 
			 Peterborough PCT 64.7 33.8 
			 Plymouth Teaching PCT 66.3 26.5 
			 Portsmouth City Teaching PCT 64.8 30.9 
			 Redbridge PCT 63.7 19.9 
			 Redcar and Cleveland PCT 56.9 30.5 
			 Richmond and Twickenham PCT 61.8 33.1 
			 Rotherham PCT 64.9 36.0 
			 Salford PCT 65.1 32.2 
			 Sandwell PCT 60.3 32.2 
			 Sefton PCT 66.1 30.7 
			 Sheffield PCT 61.8 32.5 
			 Shropshire County PCT 59.3 28.1 
			 Solihull PCT 65.1 34.6 
			 Somerset PCT 61.3 33.9 
			 South Birmingham PCT 58.3 29.2 
			 South East Essex PCT 62.5 32.9 
			 South Gloucestershire PCT 61.5 28.0 
			 South Staffordshire PCT 62.5 28.6 
			 South Tyneside PCT 67.8 38.0 
			 South West Essex PCT 62.5 31.4 
			 Southampton City PCT 63.0 32.2 
			 Southwark PCT 43.0 23.6 
			 Stockport PCT 66.4 26.5 
			 Stoke On Trent PCT 56.8 28.9 
			 Suffolk PCT 65.1 33.1 
			 Sunderland Teaching PCT 68.6 32.1 
			 Surrey PCT 62.7 31.4 
			 Sutton And Merton PCT 62.5 30.5 
			 Swindon PCT 61.9 34.7 
			 Tameside And Glossop PCT 66.3 34.7 
			 Telford And Wrekin PCT 63.8 36.5 
			 Torbay PCT 53.2 14.7 
			 Tower Hamlets PCT 64.8 35.3 
			 Trafford PCT 71.7 31.3 
			 Wakefield District PCT 63.3 33.2 
			 Walsall Teaching PCT 64.9 36.7 
			 Waltham Forest PCT 65.2 36.7 
			 Wandsworth PCT 59.9 28.8 
			 Warrington PCT 63.2 27.2 
			 Warwickshire PCT 65.2 33.2 
			 West Cheshire PCT 67.7 34.6 
			 West Essex PCT 51.7 31.7 
			 West Hertfordshire PCT 67.8 34.9 
			 West Kent PCT 61.5 30.6 
			 West Sussex PCT 64.7 31.5 
			 Westminster PCT 55.0 27.9 
			 Wiltshire PCT 64.5 29.7 
			 Wirral PCT 63.6 29.1 
			 Wolverhampton City PCT 61.7 23.5 
			 Worcestershire PCT 65.7 34.6

Voluntary Sector Organisations

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to encourage voluntary sector organisations specialising in drug and alcohol dependency to work with  (a) those specialising in mental health and  (b) statutory sector mental health bodies.

Caroline Flint: The Department's 'National Framework for Mental Health', containing recommendations for dealing with people with a dual diagnosis of mental disorder and substance misuse, details best practice guidance on effective approaches to commissioning and the provision of treatment services. The framework advocates an integrated care mechanism for those diagnosed with both mental health and substance misuse problems, drawing on the expertise of all local providers, voluntary organisations and other to deliver effective service improvement.
	For drug and alcohol misuse, there is a recognition that a significant number of those presenting for treatment have associated mental health problems.
	The updated 'Models of Care for treatment of adult drug misusers', published in June 2006, reflects this link by emphasising the importance of drug treatment services developing integrated care pathways for vulnerable groups, including those with dual diagnosis to ensure optimum treatment outcomes for those in treatment. It should be noted that as the voluntary sector is a major provider in terms of drug treatment the links with mental health bodies, including those in the statutory sector are already well established and we will continue to use all available opportunities to maintain and strengthen these links.
	Similarly, for alcohol misuse, the Department, in conjunction with the National Treatment Agency in June 2006 published 'Models of Care for Alcohol Misusers (MoCAM'. This provides guidance to local national health service organisations in developing an integrated system of interventions and treatment to meet the needs of local people, whose alcohol use is harmful. It is expected that MoCAM will be used by primary care trusts working in partnership with local commissioning groups and local service providers. This will include both the voluntary and mental health services.

Armed Forces: Bereaved Families

David Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department plans to provide from April 2007 onwards to enable bereaved families to visit the graves overseas of family members who died while in the armed services.

Derek Twigg: Since 1963 for Northwest Europe and 1967 for the rest of the world, the Ministry of Defence has offered to repatriate the bodies of all those who die in military service, for burial in the United Kingdom. However, if the family elect to have a funeral overseas, the Ministry of Defence will pay for the next of kin and a companion to attend at public expense and, should local conditions prevent their attendance, then a visit to the grave may be arranged up to two years after the death. While this policy of repatriation was not made retrospective, in the event of the discovery of identifiable human remains on a historic battlefield, or crash site, the Department will, assuming we can trace their relatives, provide the opportunity for two people to attend the service funeral at public expense.
	In addition, since 1985, widows and widowers whose husband or wife died overseas as a result of service in HM armed forces between 1914 and 1967, have been entitled to visit their spouse's grave/memorial through the Government funded war widow/ers pilgrimage scheme, provided they have not done so before at public expense. The scheme also funds a carer to accompany the widow/er on the UK section of the pilgrimage, from which point appropriate care is provided. We review periodically the administration of the scheme, which is administered for the Department by the Royal British Legion, but we have no plans to change our policy for eligible war widow/ers to visit their spouse's grave/memorial.

Chaplains

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military chaplains there were in each of the last five years, broken down by  (a) armed service,  (b) rank and  (c) faith.

Derek Twigg: The number of trained military chaplains in the UK Regular Forces in each of the last five years broken down by rank and service is shown in the following table. In addition to the Christian chaplains shown, chaplains from the four main non-Christian faiths were appointed in October 2005, one each from the Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Sikh faiths. These chaplains are MOD civil servants rather than service personnel. There is also an honorary officiating chaplain to minister to those of the Jewish faith.
	
		
			   As at 1 April each year  
			  Rank  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  1 November 2006( 1) 
			  All services 300 295 290 295 290 285 (2)285 
			 OF-5 and above 20 20 20 25 20 20 (2)20 
			 OF-4 50 55 55 55 60 60 (2)60 
			 OF-3 130 125 125 125 120 125 (2)135 
			 OF-2 100 100 90 90 90 75 (2)70 
			 OF-1 (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (4)— (2,4)— 
			 
			  Naval service( 5) 75 70 65 70 70 65 (2)65 
			 OF-5 and above 5 5 10 10 10 10 (2)5 
			 OF-4 15 15 15 10 15 15 (2)15 
			 OF-3 25 25 25 25 25 25 (2)25 
			 OF-2 25 25 20 20 20 20 (2)15 
			 
			  Army 150 150 150 150 145 145 145 
			 OF-5 and above 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 
			 OF-4 20 20 20 20 15 20 20 
			 OF-3 55 55 65 70 70 75 75 
			 OF-2 65 65 55 50 50 45 45 
			 OF-1 (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (4)— (4)— 
			 
			  RAF 75 75 70 75 75 75 (2)70 
			 OF-5 and above (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— 
			 OF-4 15 20 25 25 30 30 (2)25 
			 OF-3 50 45 35 30 20 30 (2)35 
			 OF-2 5 10 10 20 20 10 (2)10 
		
	
	The number of trained military chaplains in each of the last five years broken down by denomination and service is shown in the following table.
	
		
			   As at 1 April each year  
			  Denomination  2001( 6)  2002( 6)  2003( 6)  2004( 6)  2005( 6)  2006( 7)  1 November 2006( 1,7) 
			  Naval service( 5) 75 70 65 70 70 65 65(2) 
			 Baptist (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (4)— (2,4)— 
			 Church of England (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— 35 (2)35 
			 Church of Scotland (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— 10 (2)10 
			 Free Church of Scotland (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (4)— (2,4)— 
			 Methodist (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (4)— (2,4)— 
			 Roman Catholic (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— (8)— 10 (2)10 
			 
			  Army 150 150 150 150 145 145 145 
			 Baptist 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 
			 Calvinistic Church of Wales (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (4)— 
			 Church of England 80 75 75 75 75 70 70 
			 Church of Ireland 10 10 5 5 5 10 10 
			 Church of Scotland 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 
			 Church of Wales (4)— 5 (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— 
			 Episcopalian - Scottish (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— 
			 Free Church of Scotland (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (4)— (4)— 
			 Methodist 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 
			 Presbyterian - Ireland (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— 
			 Presbyterian - Scotland (4)— (4)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— (3)— 
			 Roman Catholic 20 25 25 25 25 25 20 
			 Unified Reformed Church (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— 
			 
			  RAF 75 75 70 75 75 75 (2)70 
			 Baptist (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (8)— 
			 Church of England 50 50 45 45 45 45 (8)— 
			 Church of Ireland (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (8)— 
			 Church of Scotland 5 5 5 5 5 5 (8)— 
			 Methodist 5 5 5 5 5 5 (8)— 
			 Presbyterian (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (4)— (8)— 
			 Roman Catholic 10 10 10 10 10 10 (8)— 
			 (1) Due to the introduction of a new personnel administration system, the breakdown of naval service chaplains by rank and denomination is provisional at November 2006 and a breakdown of RAF chaplains by denomination is not available at November 2006. The total number of naval service and RAF chaplains at November 2006 is provisional pending review. (2) Denotes provisional. (3) Denotes zero. (4 )Denotes fewer than five. All other figures have been rounded to the nearest five. (5) Naval Service includes Royal Navy and Royal Marines. (6) A breakdown of naval service chaplains by denomination is not available prior to April 2006 as this information is not held centrally. (7) The naval service totals for April 2006 and November 2006 include five Christian chaplains of unknown denomination. The Army totals for April 2006 and November 2006 include fewer than five Christian chaplains of unknown denomination. The RAF total for April 2006 includes fewer than five Christian chaplains of unknown denomination. (8) Denotes not available. 
		
	
	UK regular forces excludes full-time reserve service personnel, Ghurkhas, the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and mobilised reservists.

Departmental Correspondence

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the  (a) meetings and  (b) correspondence between him and (i) defence manufacturers and (ii) defence industry lobbyists in the last 12 months.

Adam Ingram: The Defence Ministers have held the following meetings with defence manufacturers, defence industry lobby groups and trades unions over the period 1 December 2005 to 1 December 2006.
	
		
			  Date  
			  Secretary of State for Defence 
			 26 July 2006 Meeting with representatives from CSEU, Amicus, T and G and GMB trades unions 
			 19 July 2006 Meeting with representatives from Amicus 
			 18 July 2006 Meeting with a representative from SBAC 
			 28 June 2006 Meeting with representatives from Rolls-Royce 
			 18 January 2006 Meeting with local trade union representatives Amicus, GMB and Prospect 
			 11 January 2006 Meeting with representatives from Amicus 
			   
			  Minister for the Armed Forces 
			 28 November 2006 Defence Aircraft Repair Agency Management Advisory Board 
			 21 November 2006 Army Base Repair Organisation Owners Council Meeting 
			 4 July 2006 Army Base Repair Organisation Owners Council Meeting 
			 2 March 2006 Meeting with representatives from the Army Base Repair Organisation and from Amicus and GMB unions 
			   
			  Minister for Defence Procurement 
			 27 November 2006 Meeting with a representative from QinetiQ 
			 24 November 2006 Meeting with representatives from Agusta Westland 
			 23 November 2006 Meeting with representatives from General Dynamics UK 
			 22 November 2006 Meeting with a representative from EADS 
			 16 November 2006 Meeting with representatives from Atkins 
			 9 November 2006 Meeting with a representative from VT Group 
			 9 November 2006 Meeting with representatives from BAE Systems 
			 6 November 2006 Meeting with industry representatives at Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) Alliance Board 
			 2 November 2006 Meeting with industry representatives at the National Defence Industries Council 
			 1 November 2006 Meeting with representatives from MBDA 
			 31 October 2006 Meeting with representatives from Amicus 
			 25 October 2006 Meeting with representatives from Lockheed Martin 
			 23 October 2006 Ministerial meeting with representatives from EADS 
			 29 September 2006 Meeting with representatives from Thales 
			 28 September 2006 Meeting with representatives from Boeing 
			 20 September 2006 Meeting with a representative from VT Group 
			 19 September 2006 Meeting with representatives from Lockheed Martin 
			 26 July 2006 Meeting with the Secretary of State and representatives from AMICUS 
			 24 July 2006 Meeting with trade union delegation from BAE Systems Barrow 
			 21 July 2006 Meeting with representative from Thales 
			 19 July 2006 Meeting with Secretary of State and representatives from AMICUS 
			 13 July 2006 Meeting with representatives from BAE Systems 
			 11 July 2006 Meeting with representatives from KBR 
			 6 July 2006 Meeting with representatives from MBDA 
			 28 June 2006 Secretary of State's meeting with a representative from Rolls-Royce plc 
			 28 June 2006 Meeting with representatives from EADS 
			 26 June 2006 Meeting with representatives from Lockheed Martin 
			 21 June 2006 Meeting with a representative from Surrey Satellites 
			 20 June 2006 Two meetings with representatives from BAE Systems 
			 15 June 2006 Meeting with trade union representatives from Swan Hunter 
			 8 June 2006 Meeting with a representative from Babcock 
			 8 June 2006 Meeting with trade union representatives from MBDA 
			 7 June 2006 Meeting with representatives from Rothschild 
			 6 June 2006 Meeting with representatives from KBR and DML 
			 18 May 2006 Meeting with representatives from the BAE Systems Borough trade unions, CSEU and GMB 
			 18 May 2006 Meeting with a representative from BAE Systems 
			 17 May 2006 Meeting with two representatives from Rolls Royce 
			 10 May 2006 Meeting with representatives from MBDA 
			 9 May 2006 Meeting with representatives from Lockheed Martin 
			 4 May 2006 Meeting with representatives from Thales 
			 4 May 2006 Meeting with a representative from Agusta Westland 
			 3 May 2006 Meeting with a representative from BAE Systems 
			 3 May 2006 Meeting with a representative from Agusta Westland 
			 3 May 2006 Meeting with trade union representatives from Agusta Westland 
			 27 Apr 2006 Meeting with representative from GKN 
			 20 Apr 2006 Meeting with representatives from Ultra Electronics 
			 20 Apr 2006 Meeting with representatives from KBR 
			 30 March 2006 Meeting with representative from P and O and Transco 
			 30 March 2006 Two meetings with representatives from BAE Systems 
			 27 March 2006 Meeting with representatives from Thales 
			 22 March 2006 Meeting with representatives from the VT Group 
			 9 March 2006 Meeting with a representative from General Dynamics 
			 7 March 2006 Meeting with a representative from BAE Systems 
			 2 March 2006 Meeting with a representative from Thales 
			 9 February 2006 Meeting with a representative from EADS 
			 8 February 2006 Meeting with a representative from MBDA 
			 30 January 2006 Meeting with a representative from Northrop Grumman 
			 24 January 2006 Meeting with representatives from Thales 
			 24 January 2006 Meeting with representatives from EADS 
			 13 January 2006 Meeting with a representative from VTOL Technologies Ltd 
			 12 December 2005 Meeting with representatives from Chemring 
			 1 December 2005 Meetings with representatives from BAE Systems 
			 1 December 2005 Meeting with representatives from Raytheon 
			   
			  Under Secretary of State for Defence 
			 1 November 2006 Meeting with representatives from EDS Defence Ltd 
			 29 June 2006 Meeting with a representative from the National Employer Advisory Board 
			 19 Apr 2006 Meeting with representatives from Sodexho Defence Services 
		
	
	A list of all correspondence between the Defence Ministers and defence manufacturers and defence industry lobby groups is not held by the MOD and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

Grenadier Guards

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on the 1 Battalion Grenadier Guards of the withdrawal of some of the troops' longer separation allowance.

Derek Twigg: The allowance to which you refer is the accumulated turbulence bonuses (ATB). These are ending on 31 March 2007 following a decision agreed in 2003 as part of a rebalancing of pay and allowances to target better those personnel who experience the most separation. This change has been well-publicised across all three services.
	The 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards made a representation to retain the ATB for the duration of their tour of Afghanistan between March and November 2007. While full consideration was given to the representation, it was concluded that there was no justification for treating them differently to other parts of the armed forces. ATB will however be paid to those personnel who qualify for it until the end of March 2007. After that, they will move onto the new allowance system—longer separation allowance—which has a maximum daily payment of £25.42 per day, compared to the current maximum daily payment of £12.82.

Infantry: Recruitment and Target Strength

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of television advertising campaigns in 2006 in encouraging the recruitment of infantry personnel.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 9 January 2007
	It is not possible to accurately identify the numbers of responses specifically generated by television advertising. However, Army advertising as a whole over the period 1 April to 1 December 2006 generated 163,770 inquiries to join the Regular Army. This compares very favourably with 88,000 inquiries for the same period last year. Of these, the Army judges that the multi-media Infantry 'Forward as One' campaign generated 113,000 inquiries, with the balance attributable to the 'Everest West Ridge' campaign. From these campaigns, the Army has received 30,020 specific inquiries to join the Infantry. Enlistments to the Infantry are currently up 30 per cent. compared to the same period in financial year 2005-06 and the number of newly-trained infantrymen that are forecast to join their units by the end of this financial year is up 15 per cent. on last year.

Infantry: Recruitment and Target Strength

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  what the target strength was for the infantry  (a) as a whole and  (b) for the Scottish infantry for the years ending 31 March (i) 2001, (ii) 2002, (iii) 2003, (iv) 2004, (v) 2005 and (vi) 2006; what the actual strengths were in each case in each year; what the original recruiting target was for each of these years in each case; and whether the target was revised;
	(2)  whether the original recruiting targets for the  (a) infantry and  (b) Scottish infantry were achieved;
	(3)  what recruiting targets for the  (a) infantry and  (b) Scottish infantry have been set for the year ending 31 March 2007; and what recruitment has been to date in 2006-07.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 13 December 2006
	The following tables show the target and actual strength of the Regular Army Infantry as at the 1 April 2001-06. The 'target strength' is presented in terms of Liability. Liability is not available by Infantry Division.
	
		
			  Trained Infantry Strengths and Liabilities( 1,2) 
			   Regular Army Infantry Liability( 3)  Infantry Strength( 3,4)  Of which: are Scottish Division Strength( 5) 
			 2001 26,740 25,690 3,650 
			 2002 26,740 25,640 3,650 
			 2003 26,200 25,480 3,670 
			 2004 26,360 25,870 3,700 
			 2005 24,420 25,060 3,640 
			 2006 24,450 24,080 3,510 
			 (1) Figures are for all infantry trained officers and soldiers (excluding colonels and above) regardless of where they are serving e.g. it includes elements of the manning and training margin, including infantry cap badged soldiers and officers who are serving in E1-E3 posts, on the Y list etc. Figures exclude Gurkhas.  (2) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.  (3) Figures include Scottish Division  (4) Strength figures include Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) personnel figures (5) Figures exclude the Scots Guards. 
		
	
	The Army Recruiting and Training Division, who are responsible for the recruitment and training of soldiers, recruits infantry soldiers to the three infantry career employment groups; line, parachute and guards, not to specific infantry capbadges.
	Recruiting targets for the infantry, and achievements into training for the Financial Years 2000-01 to 2005-06, are detailed in the following table.
	
		
			  Financial Year  Infantry recruiting target  Infantry enlistment achievement 
			 2000-01 Record not available 4,840 
			 2001-02 5,160 4,490 
			 2002-03 4,270 4,950 
			 2003-04 4,460 4,620 
			 2004-05 4,150 3,410 
			 2005-06 4,150 3,450 
		
	
	Statistics have been rounded to the nearest 10, numbers ending in five have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias.

Iraq

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how many complaints of abuse have been made by Iraqi detainees  (a) against UK forces and  (b) against the Queens Lancashire regiment, excluding those currently under court martial;
	(2)  how many Iraqi detainees have  (a) been injured and  (b) died in British custody in Iraq since 2003.

Des Browne: Since the Divisional Temporary Detention Facility was established in December 2003 there have been no deaths or injuries as a result of the actions of UK personnel guarding the facility.
	The number of complaints of abuse made by Iraqi detainees is not held centrally. It is Ministry of Defence policy to initiate a service police investigation where there are any grounds to suspect that a criminal act has or might have been committed by service personnel, or where the rules of engagement have been breached. This includes those who work in the Divisional Temporary Detention Facility.
	Since operations commenced in 2003, there have been 213 investigations conducted by the Royal Military Police, 195 of which were closed with no further action. 41 investigations related to the death or ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees. Of these, 35 cases have been closed, two cases have been dealt with by courts-martial, one case is currently being tried by court-martial, one case has been dealt with summarily by the commanding officer and two investigations are ongoing.
	There have been two cases against members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment in addition to that currently under court martial.

Ministerial Travel

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since he has held his present office when he has used  (a) rail services,  (b) the London Underground,  (c) tram or light railway services and (d) buses in connection with his ministerial duties.

Derek Twigg: Under the Ministerial Code Departments are expected to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements taking due account of security considerations accordance with the rules set out in Travel by Ministers. The Secretary of State for Defence has travelled overseas by rail on two occasions, the first was for a return journey between London and Brussels. The second trip involved a journey from London to Brussels, an interconnecting rail journey between Brussels and Paris before returning to London from Paris. Domestic rail services have been used for a single journey from London to Plymouth, a return journey between London and Colchester, and a single journey from Inverness to Edinburgh.
	The Secretary of State has made no journeys on the London Underground, tram or light railway services or buses in connection with his ministerial duties.

Public Finance Contracts

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what  (a) public private partnerships and  (b) private finance initiative contracts have been entered into by his Department; what assets were transferred to the private sector as part of each deal; what the value of these assets was; what the total cost is of each contract; and what estimate was made of the cost to his Department of traditional procurement over the life of each contract.

Adam Ingram: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 December 2006,  Official Report, column 447W which listed the PFI contracts and their cost. However, the information published in Hansard contained an error, which will be corrected in the bound volume. The correct values for the C-Vehicles project should have been as follows:
	
		
			  Project name  Estimated capital value  (£ million)  Contract length year  Total estimated contract payments (£ million) 
			 C vehicles 114 15 742 
		
	
	Information on assets transferred as part of the contracts and the estimates made of the cost of traditional procurement over the life of each contract is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Department has signed a further 25 deals, that are either below £20 million or involve a significant IT/IS element. Information on these, including estimated capital values, are held on the Treasury website available at
	http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public_private_partnerships/ppp_pfi_stats.cfm.
	In addition to the PFI contracts described above, on 1 July 2001 the majority of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's (DERA) assets were transferred into QinetiQ Ltd. under a public private partnership deal. These assets were described in Schedule 2 of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Trading Fund Order 2001, Statutory Instrument 2001 no. 1246, and had an estimated value of £394.5 million. The PPP process has to date raised proceeds for the taxpayer of around £600 million with MOD's retained stake in the company worth around a further £250 million.

Working Hours

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average working hours were for civilian personnel in his Department in each year since 2001.

Derek Twigg: The average number of hours worked by civilian personnel employed in the Ministry of Defence during the years from 2001 were:
	
		
			  Year( 1)  Average 
			 2001 36.2 
			 2002 36.0 
			 2003 36.0 
			 2004 35.9 
			 2005 36.1 
			 2006 36.1 
			 ( 1) A snapshot of the first week in March each year has been taken because of the way historic records are maintained.   Notes: 1. Hours shown are net (excluding meal breaks for staff on gross conditioned hours) and include basic net hours plus overtime and any other additional working hours  2.Staff employed in MOD's trading funds have been excluded.  3. Includes part-time staff as whole numbers. In 2006, the number of part time staff amounted to 6,340 but it has not been possible in the timescale to provide separate numbers for all years.

Science A-Levels

Ashok Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to increase the number of students studying science at A-level.

Bill Rammell: The Government set out a range of initiatives in the 'Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps' document which should encourage the study of science to A level and beyond.

Pay Rates

Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to eliminate pay differences between lecturers in further education and teachers in schools.

Bill Rammell: The FE White Paper (2006) reinforced the commitment to close the funding gap between schools and colleges. Funding for FE has increased by 48 per cent. in real terms between 1997 and 2005. Over the next two years (2006-07 and 2007-08) funding for FE participation will increase in cash terms by over £300 million (7 per cent.).
	FE providers are however independent organisations. We believe it is important that each provider retains the discretion to make their own decisions about pay for their staff, within their overall budget.

Leitch Report

James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the findings of the Leitch Report on skills.

Bill Rammell: I warmly welcome the Leitch review and its stretching skills ambitions for 2020. Its analysis is clear; if we are to compete in the global economy of 2020, we must have a world class skills base. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Report; now there must be shared responsibility for delivering the ambition. Employers, individuals and Government must work together to transform the level of investment in skills. We will publish an implementation plan in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement later this year.

Children's Centres

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in delivering health visiting and maternity services through children's centres.

Beverley Hughes: We now have over 1050 Sure Start Children's Centres providing a range of multi-agency support services for families with young children. We would expect to see health visiting and maternity services provided from children's centres, or have strong links with centres. It is for Primary Care Trusts in partnership with local authorities to make decisions about which health services should be delivered through children's centres, but we want to see a strong health presence particularly in centres in more disadvantaged areas, as well as PCT's running children's centres as the lead agency.

Adult Education

Philip Dunne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget allocation for adult education was in  (a) England and  (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997.

Phil Hope: The Department allocates funds for education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The LSC was established in 2001 bringing the planning and funding of post-16 education together under one body.
	In 2001-02 the Learning and Skills Council spent £2,236 million on adult programmes including FE, Work Based Learning, Adult and Community Learning and other programmes. This increased to £2,427 million in 2002-03, £2,866 million in 2003-04, £2,999 million in 2004-05 and £3,264 million for 2005-06. Adult funding for Shropshire has increased from £24.99 million in 2003-04 to £28.55 million in 2004-05 and £30.56 million in 2005-06. Due to changes in the collection of information local figures for earlier years are not available. Figures for adult education for the period 1997-2001 are not comparable as the budget was split between a range of different organisations.

Age Discrimination

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether his Department has had discussions with the Learning and Skills Council on the implications of the new age discrimination legislation for state-funded work-based learning, including apprenticeships; and if he will publish guidance for training providers on the effects of that legislation.

Phil Hope: The new age discrimination legislation is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The Learning and Skills Council have advised that training providers should seek advice and guidance on the new legislation from the DTI.
	The DTI have produced guidance on age discrimination including a guide for providers of vocational training. This guidance is available to download from their website at:
	http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/discrimination/age-discrimination/page26492.html
	and is reproduced as follows:
	 A Guide for Providers of Vocational Training
	 What does 'Vocational training' mean?
	For the purposes of the regulations, the term 'vocational training' is more than just training provided by employers for their own employees. Vocational training should be taken to include a wide range of activities, including:
	all types of training which would help fit a person for employment, including practical work experience;
	all further, higher and other adult education (but not education of pupils in schools);
	vocational guidance;
	 To whom do the regulations apply?
	The regulations will apply to vocational training providers across the statutory, private and voluntary sectors, regardless of whether they receive any public funding. Some of the regulations apply specifically to bodies that award qualifications.
	 Are all courses at Universities and Further Education Colleges covered by the regulations?
	Yes, the UK Government has decided that all courses at Institutions of Further and Higher Education should be covered by the age regulations, whether they are specifically vocational or more general in nature. This is to ensure there is a unified approach to age-related practices and policies in relation to all such provision.
	 To whom do the regulations apply?
	The regulations will apply to vocational training providers across the statutory, private and voluntary sectors, regardless of whether they receive any public funding. Some of the regulations apply specifically to bodies that award qualifications.
	 Are all courses at Universities and Further Education Colleges covered by the regulations?
	Yes, the UK Government has decided that all courses at Institutions of Further and Higher Education should be covered by the age regulations, whether they are specifically vocational or more general in nature. This is to ensure there is a unified approach to age-related practices and policies in relation to all such provision.
	 What does this mean for vocational training providers?
	As a general principle the regulations mean that providers will not be able to set age limits or age-related criteria for 'vocational training' activities (as defined above).
	In addition they will not generally be able to set such age limits for associated benefits or conditions, such as help with travelling costs.
	However, the regulations do recognise that certain age-related practices may be justifiable where they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Such objective justification will not be an easy test, and providers of vocational training will have to produce supporting evidence if challenged: assertions that an age-based approach was necessary will not be enough. For further information on objective justification, please refer to pages 30 and 31 of the Acas guidance.
	If you provide vocational training and currently set age limits or requirements, you will need to consider whether these are capable of being justified. You would have to be able to demonstrate this if challenged.
	 What about funding? Isn't that access?
	Article 3.3 of the Directive clearly states that the Directive does not apply to payments of any kind made by state schemes. The power to make provision for support for students is set out in section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. The grants and loans for tuition fees and maintenance paid to students under the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2006 (which are made under section 22) are from public funds. Student support in the UK is therefore a "state scheme". As such funding falls outside scope of the Directive it is not covered by the age regulations.
	Maintenance loans for students affect maintenance during study, not admission to a course of study. They are not related to access and fall outside the scope of the Directive.
	Bursaries and scholarships are also not covered, because they are incentives, as opposed to relating directly to access.
	 What about learning programmes supported by Government funding that has age limits?
	Age limits set in relation to Government funding are outside the scope of the Directive, as explained above. However, any decision to deny access to a training course to people outside that age group would need to be objectively justified by the training provider.
	 What does this mean for a training provider?
	What this means is illustrated by the following two examples:
	Training Provider X run an IT course which receives Government funding for participants under 25. The training provider only admits people within this age limit and refuses places to anybody 26 or over on grounds of their age. This would have to be objectively justified.
	Training Provider Y also run an IT course which receives Government funding for participants under 25, who are offered free/subsidised places. However, rather than denying access to people aged 26 or over they instead require them to pay for their own place on the course. This would not need to be objectively justified.
	For further information on objective justification, please refer to pages 30 and 31 of the Acas guidance.
	 What else do I need to know?
	There is also a provision in the regulations which allows for Positive Action to be taken in connection with access to vocational training, to compensate for disadvantages linked to age. e.g. where particular age groups may be under-represented in particular occupations.
	Positive action should not be confused with positive discrimination. A guarantee of work once the training is completed should never be offered or implied. For further information on positive action, please refer to page 29 of the Acas guidance.
	 Can you give me an example of a legitimate aim?
	As Article 6(1)(a) of the EU Employment Directive makes clear, the protection of vulnerable groups is a legitimate aim. The promotion of vocational integration is also a legitimate aim listed in the Directive. Special employment-related measures to integrate particular sections of the population into the workforce are common throughout the EU. For example, the UK Government supports apprenticeship programmes which are designed by employers to develop occupational competence and wider employability, and hence help to integrate into the workforce those who would otherwise lack the necessary skills.
	 What does vocational integration mean?
	The process of vocational integration should lead to an individual benefiting from educational opportunities, in order to become employable, and to achieve employment. Although the term "vocational integration" cannot be precisely defined, it relates to any action intended to help the transition of individuals from education or unemployment to work and their integration into the working world, or the movement of individuals between occupations.
	It should be remembered, however, that education of pupils in schools does not constitute vocational training within the meaning of the Directive.
	 Other things to consider
	The following are just some of the issues vocational training providers will need to consider:
	Do you set a minimum or maximum age for entry generally or in relation to admission or access to particular courses or other relevant activities?
	Is age taken into account in any way when considering applications for admission or access, or associated benefits and conditions e.g. do you offer preferential fee discount arrangements based on age? Do you provide residential accommodation to students of all ages, or are students over or under certain ages not offered accommodation?
	If so, can you objectively justify any age related criteria? What legitimate aim does any age related criterion help you achieve, e.g. have you clear evidence that demonstrates particular age groups would be excluded from your learning provision if they had to pay full fees?
	Are your age related criteria a proportionate means of achieving that aim? Is there another way of achieving that aim without resorting to setting age limits?
	All such matters need to be critically examined in the light of the Regulations.
	Acas have also produced a booklet called 'Guidance on Age and the workplace: a guide for employers'. This booklet is also aimed at providers of vocational training and is available from their website at http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=337 or can be obtained in hard copy from any of the 13 acas regional offices covering England, Scotland and Wales. (It can also be ordered by telephone, direct from Acas Publications, on 08702 429090.) A copy has been placed in the library.

Agricultural Colleges

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications were made to agricultural colleges in the United Kingdom in each year from 2004-05 to 2006-07; what funding each college received in each year; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: I can confirm the funding allocations that each agricultural college received from the Learning and Skills Council in each year from 2004-05 to 2006-07 as listed in the following table. For 2006-07 a number of agricultural colleges have been successful in the tendering process for Train to Gain, our new national programme of workplace training for adults. The contract values for those successful agricultural colleges is set out as follows, including those colleges which have successfully led consortia bids other colleges may also be involved in Train to Gain through collaboration with other providers.
	We do not hold information on the number of applications received from agricultural colleges.
	
		
			  £ million 
			  FE Agricultural colleges  2004-05 final allocation  2005-06 final allocation  Percentage change  2006-07 Latest allocation  Percentage change  Train to Gain contract value for 2006/07 (Sole bidder/ Consortium) 
			 Askham Bryan College 4.4 4.7 +6.1 4.9 +6.7 1.1 
			 Berkshire College 4.4 4.5 +0.6 4.9 +9.8 n/a 
			 Bicton 4.4 4.5 +1.6 4.3 3.0 n/a 
			 Bishop Burton 6.0 6.1 +1.1 6.5 +6.4 163,945 
			 Brooksby Melton 6.2 6.3 +1.7 6.4 +0.3 n/a 
			 Capel Manor 4.6 5.0 +9.5 5.3 +6.0 n/a 
			 Easton 3.1 3.3 +4.6 4.0 +23.6 n/a 
			 Hadlow 3.4 3.7 +7.2 4.5 +21.7 n/a 
			 Hartpury 7.0 7.4 +5.2 7.8 +5.9 n/a 
			 Kingston Maurward 3.7 3.9 +5.5 4.0 +2.0 n/a 
			 Moulton 8.5 9.6 +13.5 10.8 +12.0 n/a 
			 Myerscough 8.3 9.3 +12.6 10.1 +8.5 46,725 
			 Otley 8.3 8.3 0 8.4 +1.0 n/a 
			 Pershore Group 3.3 3.6 +10 3.7 +2.8 n/a 
			 Plumpton 3.8 4.0 +5.7 4.3 +9.1 n/a 
			 Reaseheath 5.6 5.9 +6.2 6.8 +14.6 382,830 
			 Rodbaston 3.7 3.9 +5.4 4.1 +3.7 n/a 
			 Sparsholt, Hampshire 8.3 9.0 +8.8 9.7 +7.1 n/a 
			 Total 97.0 103.0 +6.1 110.5 +7.3 —

Bookstart

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost to date has been of the Bookstart programme; and what titles have been distributed.

Beverley Hughes: The Bookstart programme was initiated, and is now administered, by the independent charity Booktrust.
	The titles for distribution are selected by a panel made up of librarians, health visitors, speech and language therapists, early years educationalists and Bookstart members. The panel is independent and has no involvement from Government.
	Information about books which are distributed is available online at:
	http://www.bookstart.co.uk/Parents-and-carers/Packs/Bookstart-pack-book-titles
	In his 12 July 2005 spending review, the Chancellor announced an extension of the Bookstart scheme for the SR period 2005-08, to ensure that every 18 month and three-year-old child receives a Bookstart Plus or My Treasure Chest pack respectively. HMT are providing funding for this of £27 million in total across 2005-08.
	In addition, in the pre-Budget report 2006, the Chancellor announced that every child making the transition to primary school at age five and to secondary school at age 11 will also receive a book free-of-charge—in total three million books going direct to children to lift the reading standards of young people.

Child Care

Mark Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of families in Stockport  (a) are eligible for and  (b) have taken up (i) free and (ii) subsidised child care.

Beverley Hughes: At December 2005 the Office for National Statistics shows Stockport having a population of 5,900(1) three and four-year-olds, and the 2006 early years and annual schools censuses shows the number of part time early education places funded by the free entitlement for three and four year olds in the Stockport area was 5,500(2).
	Data on eligibility and take up of free or subsidised child care overall are not available centrally.
	Child care used by parents can be subsidised in a variety of ways, including the child care element of the working tax credit, local authority subsidies, Jobcentre Plus new deals, care to learn, learner support funds and NHS child care allowances.
	(1) ONS population estimates are aggregated to age groupings of at least five years. Figures based on a single year of age at the sub-national level are therefore of limited reliability.
	(2) The number of children benefiting from some form of free early education can exceed the number of free part-time early education places taken up by children as a place may be taken up by more than one child.

Children Act

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were referred to children's services in each year since 1996 under  (a) Section 47 and  (b) Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

Beverley Hughes: Information on referrals to children's services and section 47 enquiries are collected annually on the Child Protection Register survey (CPR3). Data were first collected in 2001 but the referrals data were not thought to be reliable in that first year of collection. Information for the years available, is shown in the following table .
	The CPR3 defines a referral as a request for services to be provided by the local authority. A referral can be made by a professional from one of many different agencies
	(typically in the health and education sectors) or from any other source, including self-
	referral. The survey does not provide the reason for the referral.
	Where there is suspicion that a child may be suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, local authorities are required to make enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to establish whether there is a need for action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
	
		
			  Number of referrals and section 47 enquiries( 1) 
			  Years ending 31 March  All referrals during year  Children subject to s.47 enquiries in the year( 2) 
			 2001 not available 80,100 
			 2002 569,400 69,900 
			 2003 570,200 65,000 
			 2004 572,700 72,100 
			 2005 552,000 68,500 
			 2006 569,300 71,800 
			 (1) Numbers in this table include unborn children. 
			 (2) Data for 2002 and 2003 are estimates that take account of missing data.

Early Years Care

Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how allocation of the free early years entitlement to local authorities in England takes account of  (a) regional and  (b) local differences in the cost of providing childcare.

Beverley Hughes: Each local authority's total dedicated schools grant (DSG) for 2006-07 was calculated by multiplying their full-time equivalent pupil numbers (aged three-15) from the January 2006 pupil count by their DSG guaranteed unit of funding (which is unchanged from that set in December 2005 and is available on Teachernet at:
	www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=9405).
	The DSG guaranteed unit of funding for 2006-07 was based on actual spend per pupil in 2005-06, with a basic increase of 5 per cent. per pupil (5.1 per cent. for London authorities) and headroom allocated to reflect new priorities (including £82 million early years expansion).
	For those authorities below 90 per cent. participation for their three year olds in January 2006, the number of three year olds for funding purposes was brought up to 90 per cent. of the projected population.
	The formula used to calculate schools formula spending share for 2005-06 and previous years took account of the differences in the cost of providing childcare at in different local authorities. Of the 2.886 billion Under 5 Schools FSS for 2005-06
	approximately:
	£138 million (or 5 per cent. of the total) was distributed on the basis of the area cost adjustment for areas where it costs more to recruit and retain staff; and
	£319 million (or 11 per cent. of the total) was distributed on the basis of an index of pupils with additional educational needs.
	Since the formula for DSG starts from local authorities1 actual spending on education for 2005-06, that will reflect the different local circumstances and variations in the cost of provision. The £82 million extra for the extension from 33 to 38 weeks was distributed on the basis of the number of full-time equivalent children in private, voluntary and independent settings (since pupils in maintained settings already received 38 weeks'free provision), weighted for area costs. Full details can be found in the guaranteed unit of funding model at:
	www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=9405.
	It is up to local authorities—in conjunction with their schools forum—to decide how to allocate their DSG between age groups and types of setting.
	The current review of school funding will consider the funding of the free entitlement for nursery education. Following on from that, will be issuing a consultation document in the spring.

Integrated Children's System Report

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the report commissioned by his Department on The Integrated Children's System: An Evaluation of the Practice, Process and Consequences of the ICS in CSSR's.

Beverley Hughes: Yes. The draft of this report is currently being peer-reviewed, and it will be published once the report has been completed.

Learning and Skills Council

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on travel expenses for staff by the Learning and Skills Council in  (a) 2005 and  (b) 2006.

Bill Rammell: The payment of travelling expenses to the Learning and Skills Council's staff is an operational matter. Mark Haysom, the Chief Executive of the Learning and Skills Council, has write to the hon. Member with the information requested and copy of his reply has been placed in the House Library.
	 Letter from Mark Haysom, dated 9 January 2007:
	Further to your recent question to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how much was spent on travel expenses for staff by the Learning and Skills Council in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006,1 can provide the following information.
	The Learning and Skills Council produces figures on a financial year basis, 1 April to 31 March, and this has been used here. 2006-2007 financial year has not yet completed but I have quoted figures for the eight months complete at the time of writing.
	The Learning and Skills Council's expenditure on staff travel expenses can be analysed as follows:
	
		
			  Description  1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 (12 Months)  1 April 2006 to 30 November 2006 (8 Months) 
			 Total staff travel and subsistence expenses (£ million) (1)7.999 5.363 
			 Number of expense claims therein 26,406 13,765 
			 Average number of claims per month 2,200 1,720 
			 Average claim amount (£) 144 148 
			 (1)As per note 7a of the LSC's financial statements' travel and subsistence-staff expenses 
		
	
	Purchased rail travel, vehicle leasing and hotel bookings make up the majority of the difference between the expense claims and the total staff travel and subsistence expenses. I hope that you find this information helpful.

Nursery Schools: Coventry

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many mainstream nursery providers there were in the Coventry area in  (a) 1997 and  (b) 2005.

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 8 January 2007
	Information is not collected in the form requested.
	The available information on child care providers is shown in tables 1 and 2.
	
		
			  Table 1: Number( 1)  of registered child care providers for children under eight years of age by type of care Coventry local authority area—position at 31 March 2005 
			  Type of care  2005 
			 Full day care 90 
			 Sessional day care 40 
			 Child minders 500 
			 Out of school day care 50 
			 Crèche day care 40 
			 (1) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 if under 100, and to the nearest 100 if over 100.  Source: Ofsted 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: Number( 1)  of day care providers for children under eight years of age by type of provider—Coventry local authority area—position at 31 March 1997 
			  Type of provider  1997 
			 Day nurseries 90 
			 Playgroups and pre-schools 100 
			 Child minders 700 
			 Out of school clubs 10 
			 Holiday schemes 10 
			 (1) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 if under 100, and to the nearest 100 if over 100.  Source: Children's Day Care Facilities Survey. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3: Number( 1)  of registered child care places for children under eight years of age by type of care—Coventry local authority area—position at 31 March 2005 
			  Type of care  2005 
			 Full day care 3,600 
			 Sessional day care 1,100 
			 Child minders 2,500 
			 Out of school day care 1,700 
			 Crèche day care 500 
			 (1) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 if under 100, and to the nearest 100 if over 100.  Source: Ofsted 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 4: Number( 1)  of day care places for children under eight years of age by type of provider—Coventry local authority area—position at 31 March 1997 
			  Type of provider  1997 
			 Day nurseries 2,200 
			 Playgroups and pre-schools 2,300 
			 Child minders 2,300 
			 Out of school clubs 200 
			 Holiday schemes 400 
			 (1) Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 if under 100, and to the nearest 100 if over 100.  Source: Children's Day Care Facilities Survey. 
		
	
	However, it is also apparent to take in to account change in the numbers of places available. The information is given in tables 3 and 4.
	Local authorities were responsible for the registration and inspection of children's day care facilities until these responsibilities were transferred to Ofsted in September 2001. The figures for 2005 were derived from the Ofsted database of registered child care providers. The figures for 1997 were derived from the Children's Day Care Facilities Survey, which was discontinued in 2001. Therefore the figures for child care providers for 2005 are not directly comparable with the day care figures for 1997.
	With the introduction of the National Day Care Standards and the transfer of responsibilities for registration and inspection of child care providers from local authority social service departments to Ofsted in September 2001, child care places were classified according to the type of day care provided: full day care, sessional day care, child minder, out of school day care or crèche day care. Ofsted have produced figures based on this classification on a quarterly basis from March 2003. Their latest figures were published in their report "Registered Childcare Providers and Places, September 2006", which is available on their website:
	www.ofsted.gov.uk/.
	Up until March 2001, child care providers were classified according to the type of provider: day nurseries, playgroups and pre-schools, child minders, out of school clubs and holiday schemes. Figures based on this classification were published in a series of Statistical Bulletins, which are available from the Department's website:
	www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

Serious Case Reviews

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many serious case reviews were conducted in each year since 1996.

Beverley Hughes: The Child Protection Database, maintained by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, indicates that in 2003-04 78 cases were the subject of a serious case review (SCR). In 2004-05 there were 82 cases. Data for 2005-06 are not yet available. Data for 2000-03 are being obtained from the Commission and I shall write to the hon.. Member when these have been received. Comparable data are not available prior to 2000.

BAE Systems

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which BAe Systems export contracts have been guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department since 1997; and what the  (a) country of destination,  (b) sums insured and  (c) product or programme was in each case.

Ian McCartney: holding answer 8 January 2007
	ECGD has provided support in respect of the following export contracts won by BAE Systems since it was formed as a company in November 1999:
	
		
			   Market  Project Name  ECGD product type and sum insured 
			 2000 Saudi Arabia Al Yamamah Contract of indemnity 
			  South Africa South African defence package (SADP) Buyer credit, £l,679.9 million 
			 2001 Saudi Arabia Al Yamamah Contract of indemnity 
			 2002 Romania Surveillance Vehicles Buyer Credit, £4.3 million 
			  Saudi Arabia Al Yamamah Contract of indemnity 
			 2003 Romania Refurbishment of frigates Buyer credit, £106.03 million 
			  Saudi Arabia Al Yamamah Contract of indemnity 
			 2004 Saudi Arabia Al Yamamah Contract of indemnity 
			 2005 Saudi Arabia Al Yamamah Contract of indemnity 
			 2006 Saudi Arabia Al Yamamah Contract of indemnity 
		
	
	One other export contract was supported by ECGD during this period but its
	disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial position of the
	parties involved.
	Details of "sums insured" in relation to the Al Yamamah defence programme are not provided as disclosure of such information would be prejudicial to the commercial interests of ECGD and BAE Systems.

Compensation Payments

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much in compensation payments was paid by his Department in 2005-06; and what the reason was for each payment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: DTI made compensation payments totalling £51,877.53 in 2005-06. There were 62 compensation payments within this total, grouped as follows:
	26 compensation payments for loss or damage to personal property totalling £4,927.28
	10 compensation payments for late payment of pension entitlement, pension losses or poor service totalling £11,360.31
	25 compensation payments relating to tribunal and Ombudsman awards, tribunal attendance costs, discrimination claims and contractual issues totalling £19,960.94
	One compensation payment in accordance with regulations on making payments for dismissal on grounds of inefficiency £15,629

Departmental Computer Data

David Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of his Department's  (a) computer data and  (b) computer backup data is stored with online data storage providers.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The DTI does not store any with online storage providers. All data is stored on devices attached to DTI systems that are either located on DTI sites or on sites belonging to our outsourcing partner. These sites are all in the United Kingdom and have been approved as sufficiently secure to hold Government data to restricted level.

Departmental Computer Data

David Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of his Department's  (a) computer data and  (b) computer backup data is stored outside the United Kingdom.

Jim Fitzpatrick: No computer data belonging to the DTI is stored outside the United Kingdom. No computer back up data belonging to the DTI is stored outside the United Kingdom.

Labour Camps: China

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are in place for monitoring the commercial output of labour camps in China for import to the UK.

Ian McCartney: The Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 prohibits the import into the UK of goods made in any foreign prison or like establishment. The Act enables the seizure of such goods and prosecution of importers. However, the Act can be enforced only if evidence is supplied proving the foreign prison-made origin of goods. No seizures or prosecutions have resulted in recent years, although the Government remains willing to act upon any evidence supplied to it.

Regional Development Agencies

Julie Kirkbride: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what overseas offices are maintained by each regional development agency (RDA); what the total cost to the public purse of each office was in each year since 2001; how much was allocated to each such office for 2006-07; how many  (a) full-time and  (b) part-time (i) UK-based and (ii) locally-engaged staff were employed by each RDA in each office in each year since 2001; and what assessment he has made of the impact of each office on the economies of the regions of each RDA.

Margaret Hodge: holding answer 18 December 2006
	The following tables show the countries in which offices are maintained by the regional development agencies, the costs of running those offices, the numbers of full-time and part-time staff employed at those offices and the numbers of locally engaged and UK based staff they employ. Due to the disproportionate cost of providing this data as far back as 2001, the tables cover the last two financial years only. UK Trade and Investment is currently working with the regional development agencies to review their representation overseas and maximise effectiveness, ensuring that they deliver what is best for the UK in the most coherent manner.
	
		
			  Costs in 2005-06 
			  £000 
			  RDA/Country  Advantage West Midlands  East of England  East Midlands  North West  One North East  South East England  South West England  Yorkshire Forward 
			 Australia (1)31 — (1)45 (2)55 (2)55 52 70 (2)55 
			 Belgium 99 — — — — — — — 
			 China — — — — 98 28 82 29 
			 France 122 — 60 — — 27 — — 
			 Germany 81 — 100 — 28 — — — 
			 India (1)64 — (1)40 — — — — — 
			 Japan (1)73 — (1)110 (3)158 183 70 398 (3)158 
			 Korea — — — — 75 50 — — 
			 Norway — — — — 33 — — — 
			 Sweden 81 — (1)80 — — — — — 
			 USA (1)505 180 (1)505 (2)364 (2)364 107 122 (2)364 
		
	
	
		
			  Allocation for 2006-07 
			  £000 
			  RDA/Country  Advantage West Midlands  East of England  East Midlands  North West  One North East  South East England  South West England  Yorkshire Forward 
			 Australia (1)24 — (1)45 (2)53 (2)53 65 70 (2)53 
			 Belgium 70 — — — — — — — 
			 China — — — — 87 32 80 104 
			 France 78 — 60 — — 80 — — 
			 Germany 61 — 100 — 19 — — — 
			 India (1)23 — (1)40 — — — — — 
			 Japan (1)67 — (1)110 (3)172 173 66 400 (3)172 
			 Korea — — — — 48 12 — — 
			 Norway — — — — 19 — — — 
			 Sweden 101 — 80 — — — — — 
			 USA (1)505 149 (1)505 (2)102 (2)102 170 125 (2)102 
		
	
	
		
			  Full-time or part-time staff in 2005-06 
			   Advantage West Midlands  East of England  East Midlands  North West 
			   Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time 
			 Australia — (1)1 — — — (1)1 (2)0.7 (2)1.3 
			 Belgium 1 — — — — — — — 
			 China — — — — — — — — 
			 France 1 — — — — 1 — — 
			 Germany 1 — — — — 1 — — 
			 India — (1)1 — — — (1)1 — — 
			 Japan (1)1 — — — (1)1 — (3)1 (3)1 
			 Korea — — — — — — — — 
			 Norway — — — — — — — — 
			 Sweden 1 — — — — 1 — — 
			 USA (1)3.5 — 2 1 (1)3.5 — (2)4 — 
		
	
	
		
			   One North East  South East England  South West England  Yorkshire Forward 
			   Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time 
			 Australia (2)0.7 (2)1.3 — 1 1 — (2)0.7 (2)1.3 
			 Belgium — — — — — — — — 
			 China 3 — — 1 2 — 2 — 
			 France — — 1 — — — — — 
			 Germany — 1 — — — — — — 
			 India — — — — — — — — 
			 Japan 2 1 — 2 4 — (3)1 (3)1 
			 Korea — 1 — 1 — — — — 
			 Norway — 1 — — — — — — 
			 Sweden — — — — — — — — 
			 USA (2)4 — — 5 2 — (2)4 — 
		
	
	
		
			  Full-time or part-time staff in 2006-07 
			   Advantage West Midlands  East of England  East Midlands  North West 
			   Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time 
			 Australia (1)1 — — — — (1)1 (2)0.7 (2)1.3 
			 Belgium 1 — — — — — — — 
			 China — — — — — — — — 
			 France 1 — — — — 2 — — 
			 Germany 1 — — — — 2 — — 
			 India (1)1 — — — — (1)1 — — 
			 Japan (1)2 — — — (1)1 — (3)1 (3)1.5 
			 Korea — — — — — — — — 
			 Norway — — — — — — — — 
			 Sweden 1 — — — — 1 — — 
			 USA (1)3.5 — 1 1 (1)3.5 — (2)4.3 (2)0.7 
		
	
	
		
			   One North East  South East England  South West England  Yorkshire Forward 
			   Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time  Full-time  Part-time 
			 Australia (2)0.7 (2)1.3 — 1 1 — (2)0.7 (2)1.3 
			 Belgium — — — — — — — — 
			 China 3 — — 1 2 — 2 — 
			 France — — 1 — — — — — 
			 Germany — 1 — — — — — — 
			 India — — — — — — — — 
			 Japan 2 1 — 2 4 — (3)1 (3)1.5 
			 Korea — 1 — 1 — — —  
			 Norway — 1 — — — — — — 
			 Sweden — — — — — — — — 
			 USA (2)4.3 (2)0.7 — 5 2 — (2)4.3 (2)0.7 
			 (1) Collaboration between Advantage West Midlands and East Midlands Development (2 )Collaboration between North West Development Agency, One North East and Yorkshire Forward. (3 )Collaboration between North West Development Agency and Yorkshire Forward. 
		
	
	
		
			  RDA/Country  2005-06  2006-07 
			  East Midlands Development Agency   
			 France — 1 
			 Germany — 1 
			
			  One North East   
			 Norway 1 1 
		
	
	North West, One North East and Yorkshire Forward have collaborated to have one UK based member of staff in the USA in 2006-07. All other staff are locally engaged.
	
		
			  London Development Agency 2006-07 
			   China 
			 Allocation 82 
			 Full-time 4 
			 Part-time 1 
			 Locally engaged 4 
			 UK based 1

Regional Development Agencies

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what overseas offices regional development agencies have in place; how much each cost in 2005-06; and where each is located.

Margaret Hodge: The following table gives details of the Regional Development Agencies overseas offices by country and the annual costs for 2005-06, these are reviewed annually. The London Development Agency has this year set-up an office in China but there are no related costs for 2005-06. This expenditure is kept under continuous review by the RDAs. A joint review of UK representation overseas by UKTI and the RDAs and we are hoping to complete that review by September 2007.
	
		
			  Annual costs for 2005-06 in £000 
			  DA/  Country  Advantage West Midlands  East of England  East Midlands  North West  One North East  South East England  South West England  Yorkshire Forward 
			 Australia (1)31 — (1)45 (2)55 (2)55 52 70 (2)55 
			 Belgium 99 — — — — — — — 
			 China — — — — 98 28 82 29 
			 France 122 — 60 — — 27 — — 
			 Germany 81 — 100 — 28 — — — 
			 India (1)64 — (1)40 — — — — — 
			 Japan (1)73 — (1)110 (3)158 183 70 398 (3)158 
			 Korea — — — — 75 50 — — 
			 Norway — — — — 33 — — — 
			 Sweden 81 — (1)80 — — — — — 
			 USA (1)505 180 (1)505 (2)364 (2)364 107 122 (2)364 
			 (1 )Collaboration between Advantage West Midlands and East Midlands Development Agency. (2 )Collaboration between North West Development Agency, One North East and Yorkshire Forward. (3 )Collaboration between North West Development Agency and Yorkshire Forward.

Sorting Offices

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with  (a) Royal Mail management and  (b) the Communication Workers Union on the proposal to shut Gloucester and Reading sorting offices.

Jim Fitzpatrick: No discussions have taken lace on this matter. This is an operational matter for which Royal Mail has direct responsibility.

VAT-free Websites

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of independent retailers which have been put out of business as a result of competition from VAT free websites; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The information requested is not held centrally.
	Causes of failure for all bankruptcy orders and company compulsory liquidations in England and Wales are being captured electronically for all new cases from October 2006, however the classification being used is not sufficiently detailed to identify "competition from VAT free websites" as a cause.
	The industry classification of bankruptcy and company liquidation cases identifies sub-groups of the retail sector, but not their status in terms of whether they are independent retailers.
	The Insolvency Service publishes quarterly statistics on insolvencies; the latest are for quarter 3 2006 and may be viewed here:
	http://www.insolvencygov.uk/otherinformiation/statistics/insolv.htm